Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Tiffany will be very CROSS !!!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Garry H (Cut Nut)

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,764
This 10 inch high adv has been running in one of Melbourne''s leading daily newspapers.
I cant believe Tiffany have not yet taken legal action!

I thought they had world wide design rights over that color - and the ad is "trading off".

TiffanyWillBeCross.jpg
 
hehehe.....clever!
 
This ad has been running for a few weeks. They also have one which goes along the lines ''Why pay for the blue box when all you want is the diamond?'' (or something like that)

Paul Bram stocks beautiful jewellery - I got a .31 g vvs1 diamond pendant from my fiance a few christmases back. I''ve heard a rumour that it is no longer owned by Paul Bram and that he sold the store to Thomas Jewellers (or was it Prouds?) a few years back but still trades under the PB brand. Do you know if this is true.
 
I think at least here (US) you can use someone's trademark to compare their product to yours, but you can't use it in a way that looks like you are selling yours with it or trading with it. So as you say, Garry, maybe this is trading off T&C's properties, at least enough to get a cease-and-desist letter, though actually being found on the wrong side of the law is another issue. Exactly where that line is drawn keeps lawyers busy, but names and logos are trademarks as well as Tiff blue, and you see them all the time in comparison ads. As for how the Aussies draw the lines on this stuff, well, I guess someone will find out, won't they?
 
Australia is not as litigious a society as America is but we are certainly heading down that path. I don''t think Tiffany will do anything about it - the ads have been running for about a month already. We probably would have heard something about it by now if they intended to.
 
Yes Sparkster - for about a decade the Thomas family children have been running PB.
 
You can''t trademark or copyright a color.
 
I just think the setting isnt nearly as nice a the true Tiffany and the prongs on the etenrity band are huge....if you are going to make the comparison back it up. Just my opinion.
 
Date: 5/5/2005 9:13:46 AM
Author: ame
You can''t trademark or copyright a color.
Click to expand...
Its true. Imagine how few colors would be left in this world, if any!

ING Bank = orange
Coke, Target = red
IBM, Wal-Mart, Ford = blue
Cheerios = yellow
Kraft, Pepsi = red, white and blue


If they hold any marketing trademarks/patents (other than logo), its probably on the shapes and sizes of their box.
 
njc,
That is so true, I never thought about it like that.
 
oh... tiffany... i thought they were talking about blue nile.
face4.gif
 
Unless it''s my computer screen they also got the shade of blue all wrong. Tiffany''s has more green in it.
 
Looks pretty close, though a bit lighter, to me.

They can also not copyright the font, just the way it is in the logo, just the "treatment" if any, they did to the font. (If it''s the font I think it is, that''s a very common font)
 
We had a case of an Italian small goods company with the motto - "Is Don, is good" and a competitor took up this line "is Castlemaine, is better"

Don sued and won.

I dont see anything different in this case - it is trading off in my book

I think you will find the color is copyrighted.
 
I see a difference. Your example had a tagline which the other company was using, just tweaked a bit.

This jewelry co isn''t using Tiffany''s slogan or color for itself. It was poking fun at Tiffany. Not borrowing anything of Tiffany''s for itself. Recently, I''ve seen a Mazda commercial that straight up has Nissan, Honda, and Toyota names in the commercial itself. It''s ok, cuz Mazda is poking fun at them. Not using their names (or something similar) for itself.
 
Date: 5/5/2005 3:50:57 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I think you will find the color is copyrighted.
Click to expand...

This excerpt is from the US Copyright Office. Color is not eligible for copyright protection.

WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)


Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents


Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration


Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)


 
I actually thought it was called Tiffany Blue.
 
It can also be called 52Cyan and 6Magenta if you wanna be technical. You cannot copyright that. Name or otherwise. They might be able to register the "Tiffany Blue" as a phrase with some really great BS explanation, but its highly unlikely they would be granted that.
 
Date: 5/5/2005 3:50:57 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
We had a case of an Italian small goods company with the motto - ''Is Don, is good'' and a competitor took up this line ''is Castlemaine, is better''

Don sued and won.

I dont see anything different in this case - it is trading off in my book

I think you will find the color is copyrighted.
Click to expand...
I remember that one Garry.

Do you remember an ad that John Laws did a few years back? He advertised brand x and their motto was ''if you''re on a good thing, stick to it.'' Then he went to advertise brand y and their motto was ''if you find a better thing, switch to it.'' Brand x took brand y to court and won. I can''t remember what product it was
 

from Tiffany.com



The names TIFFANY, TIFFANY & CO., T&CO. 1837, TIFFANY CLASSICS, TIFFANY FOR MEN, TIFFANY MARK, TIFFANY NATURE, TIFFANY PLAYGROUND, TIFFANY SEASHORE, TIFFANY SIGNATURE, TIFFANY TOYS, AMERICAN GARDEN, ATLAS, FIREWORKS, LUCIDA, SCHLUMBERGER, SELECTIONS, STREAMERICA AND TESORO, as well as the TIFFANY BLUE BOX and the color TIFFANY BLUE are trademarks of Tiffany (NJ) Inc. and/or its affiliates and are used under license.

All designs copyrighted by Tiffany and Company, except where otherwise noted.


ELSA PERETTI, DIAMONDS BY THE YARD, PEARLS BY THE YARD and BEAN DESIGN are trademarks of Elsa Peretti. Elsa Peretti designs copyrighted by Elsa Peretti.


PALOMA PICASSO and X DESIGN are trademarks of Paloma Picasso. Paloma Picasso designs copyrighted by Paloma Picasso.
 
You cannot trademark a color. Just cant. Maybe in Australia you can, but not in the states. I deal with this frequently at work, and every single client that tries to copyright and trademark a color that gets laughed at. It's not enforceable so they don't waste the time.

I use "tiffany blue" ALL the time in my work. To me its just 52Cyan and 6Magenta. It's probably a PMS color as well, don't have a swatchbook in front of me to point to it.

ETA:
Tiffany and Cadbury use their color as their brand, not necessarily their trademark. They figure that the use of that particular color in their works and advertisement and corporate identity instills in consumers the brand, for example, since they use that blue in all of their collateral, most people see it and say "oh, that's tiffanys" and some folks see that particular shade of purple, "oh yea, that's cadbury". Purple and Robin's Egg Blue, as that shade of blue is generally considered, are not exclusive to those companies. Many companies use them in some way or another and Tiffany's can sue them till they are "blue" in the face, unless youget a very corporation friendly and bought judge, it's not likely they will win. If another equally over-priced and over-hyped competitive jewelry company was trying to brand themselves with that exact PMS or CMYK blend as "their" color, they might have a rub, but most companies in this situation would just find a slightly different shade of blue to use.
 
Very clever. I like it!
9.gif


ame is right. I wok in advertising for a big financial services company (top of FORTUNE 100) and we have a "color"...a specific PMS shade that at elast 2 other companies I know of use. That''s the way it is.
 
it could be that a reference to the color as ''tiffany blue'' is a violation rather than the actual color itself. the wording on their website is unclear, just saying ''the color Tiffany Blue''...not if the printing of the color or the usage of the name, etc. But from the way the rest is worded, it sounds like usage of the name. aka Crayola cannot create a Tiffany Blue color.

chances are it is a PMS color and if so, cannot be copyrighted so that others cannot use it or else I bet alot of people would be in violation as PMS colors are used as staples all the time!
 
I think it might be a hard case for Tiff, "Out of the Blue" is an expression used for lots of years. It doensn''t refer to Tiff.
 

This really bothers me. I TOTALLY agree with ame and Jen, being in a similar trade... YOU CANT COPYRIGHT COLOR! Color isnt a thing... its numbers like ame was explaining. Its either a can of paint (Pantone) or a mix of colors (CMYK/RGB).


I found the copyright comments on Tiffany''s website before you had posted them, but you just cant copyright the color, the name maybe. Like i said before, you start doing that, there will be no color left!!! Are you going to start bringing lawsuits against flowers and trees because they are "your" color?!?!?

Check this link out on the Pantone website. Notice the Barbie card? It says PANTONE 820... known to everyone else in the world as "Barbie Pink".
 
OK
Colors are free.

But what about trading off others name and reputation?

The fact that a Tiffany type blue is placed around an otherwise colorless adv - and the usage of words - is that fair?

"you''ll pay too much" - is that fair? Lots of people do not think that way - they believe Tiffany add value - even in the second hand market a Tiffany original is worth more than the exact same non tiffany diamnond
 
You are right, it isnt fair... its saying Tiffany without saying a word. They are playing dirty, but it happens all the time. Political ads, car commercials, furniture ads, cell phone companies! Dog eat dog, whatever you can do to get an edge on your competitor.

In the US right now there is a commercial running for a store called Room Store. The woman says "oh look, for $500 at the fancy furniture store, you can get this ONE dining room chair. But at Room Store i got the table AND four chairs for $500!" The ad is playing off that the other furniture stores charge more (but have a higher quality product). And just like you said, some people place value in knowing they have Tiffany and pay. The same way someone may value that they have a piece of furniture by a high-end furniture store/company.
 
It might not be fair but it''s not illegal or in violation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top